Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Epithet Inflation: The Case of "Racism"

Reading news stories about the Shirley Sherrod case, I was struck, not for the first time, by the way in which current usage of the word "racism" demonstrates epithet inflation. Ms Sherrod's initial response to a white farmer who wanted her help, as she reported it, was to give him less help than she would have given to a black farmer. On further thought she decided that that was a mistake, did her best for him, and apparently ended up friends with him and his wife.

Suppose, however, that she had not changed her mind. What she would then have done could legitimately be labeled discrimination, although not (to my mind) a very serious example—most of us are more willing to help people we identify with than people we see as in some way different or alien. Racism is lynching, burning crosses, spitting on people—hating people because of their race. Helping people a little less than you would help them if they were of your race doesn't come close to qualifying.

Once a label is firmly identified as bad, it is always tempting to apply it a little more widely. And a little more widely still. And ... . In the case of "racist," the process has gone even further than this incident illustrates, to the point where it can mean nothing more than "someone whose views about race I disagree with."

My daughter reported some time back that at Oberlin, the signs asking students not to steal dishes from the dining hall explained that doing so was a bad idea, because such things ended up in landfills. "Do what's right for the environment."

A line of argument I'm seeing around is that the issue with the Sherrod incident is not so much what happened 24 years ago, but the reaction to it displayed by Sherrod and, even more so, her audience over the course of the entire speech. Supposedly the story of blowing off the white farmer and subsequent discussion of keeping assistance within the black community (I forget the exact euphemism she used) drew enthusiastic applause throughout the speech. Imagine if the group was composed of any other ethnicity...

At any rate, she was fired over it, so it must be bad, because surely the White House wouldn't take such a drastic action in an ill-considered, knee-jerk fashion without first having a firm grasp of all relevant facts?

"Supposedly the story of blowing off the white farmer and subsequent discussion of keeping assistance within the black community (I forget the exact euphemism she used) drew enthusiastic applause throughout the speech."

Have you seen the full video? I haven't, but from the descriptions I have seen, her point was not that blowing off the white farmer was correct (indeed, she didn't say she had blown him off, merely not done as much for him as she would have if he had been black) but that she realized it was wrong, and went back and did what she could for him--with the result that he didn't lose his land, and he and his wife ended up as friends of hers. As you may know, the wife has been quite vocal in her support.

Very brave that you only share your observation about overuse of accusations of "racism" when the "victim" is black. Imagine if an analogous situation played out with a white bureaucrat. He wouldn't be getting his job back, that's for sure. I mean you didn't even see fit to comment on the NAACP outrageously calling Tea Parties racist. That's what led to Breitbart posting the video.

But kids are being taught values in school, and they're learning them very well.

They're being taught to trust authority, despise racism, and protect the environment. These values are deeply ingrained in the younger generation now, held as deeply as religious convictions used to be.

I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for this woman. For decades, whites have had to walk on eggshells whenever dealing with blacks, lest the dread cry of "Racist! Racist!" go up, and his career go down the drain. Look at Mark Fuhrman...despite a lot of evidence from his daily life that he was no racist, he got his career destroyed over having used "the N-word" (gods, I detest that sappy euphemism) years and years before.

Members of group A have been unfairly attacked as racists by members of group B. So there's nothing wrong if members of group B get unfairly attacked as racists by members of group A.

I have no idea whether Eoppen is a racist, but on the evidence of his post he is a collectivist. He bases his moral judgements on groups, not on individuals. One black does something wrong, so it's fine if a different black, who didn't do anything wrong, has something wrong done to him.

On the contrary. One of the points she is making is that the fact that some whites mistreated some blacks in the past--including killing her father--is not a reason for her, a black woman, to refuse to help other whites. Just the opposite of the point that Eoppen was making.